Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Big Resolution News...

Thanks for the answers. I think I get it a bit better now.

Generally I agree with the "just look at the great images and enjoy..." :)

which just about fits my level of technical expertise.
 
Before you comment on the details of the chart graph - put your favourite/usual "other" camera on that chart and plot the same graph. I'm not a gambling man, but I'm pretty confident on the relative performance of the RED M-X as shown over the "other" camera.

Graeme
 
Question for the software experts: why does the luminance average out to below the center line once it can no longer be resolved? Both graphs do it so I assume there must be some optical phenomenon or principle of debayering which causes it.

I'm sure it's not anything that any human or even software would ever notice or care about, just curious.
 
Now that's what I call a new-year's resolution.
And don't stand too close to that chart, you might cut yourself ( :
 
Michael Stanmore said:
OK the loud sycophantic cheering has drowned out my question about the graph on page 1 of the thread.

The graph shows things starting to get inaccurate at about 3500

Am I reading that wrong? If so, perhaps it's better not the post the graphs and just tell us that you've made the chip or whatever better... the 35 pages of responses all saying "well done red team" will still materialise... and you won't get bothersome people like me actually wondering what the graph is showing us.

Like I said on page 1, the graphs don't mean anything to me other than seeing some nice smooth gradient or whatever, and it seems to go to 4K but it has some spikes and such that break the curve severely from about 3500 onwards, and there's no explanation of how that's OK. Which is all I'm wondering about.
Click to expand...

Michael,

The chart does show that the resolution limit (MTF = 0%) is reached slightly above 4k. It means that the sensor does resolve 4k and small amount beyond that until it stops resolving the detail at around 4.1k. You will NEVER get a smooth curve at any detail (spatial frequency) and for this reason we measure sharpness using MTF.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
Question for the software experts: why does the luminance average out to below the center line once it can no longer be resolved? Both graphs do it so I assume there must be some optical phenomenon or principle of debayering which causes it.

I'm sure it's not anything that any human or even software would ever notice or care about, just curious.
Click to expand...

It's gamma that does that.

Graeme
 
Dear Mr Jannard,

We have kidnapped Graeme Nattress and are holding him for ransom. We demand 1 Trillion Yen or the Red Magic.

Call us when you are ready to meet our demands or the Digital Shaman gets it.

- Sony & Panavision
 
noahvolek said:
Dear Mr Jannard,

We have kidnapped Graeme Nattress and are holding him for ransom. We demand 1 Trillion Yen or the Red Magic.

Call us when you are ready to meet our demands or the Digital Shaman gets it.

- Sony & Panavision
Click to expand...

LOL, Graeme should definitely change his job title to Digital Shaman.
 
David Rasberry said:
LOL, Graeme should definitely change his job title to Digital Shaman.
Click to expand...
But he's already Thane of Canada. BTW, why isn't he on the dignitary dais at the Olympics?!
 
Jannard said:
Well... even we were lulled to sleep with conventional thinking. It was the industry's perception (before RED) that the most measured resolution you could get from a Bayer Patter sensor was 75%. We showed that with Graeme's magic, you could get 80%. We believed for the past 2 years that was the theoretical limit.

We were wrong. What new techniques in the new sensor, new OLPF, new debayering technology, better compression and a wicked sharp RED Pro Prime... that "limit" has been blow by.

Here is a test of the new M-X sensor shot 4K 16:9 at REDCODE 42 with a 100mm RPP. It shows that 4K now yields 3.5K measured resolution (as compared to 3.2K in old tests). We also will show (as soon as I post the next chart) that 4.5K from the same sensor and lens yields a true 4.1K measured resolution.

I guess the "RED doesn't really deliver 4K" is old news.

Jim


4.5K showing measured resolution of 4.1K. (85mm RPP)
Click to expand...

Great news and very important to us.

So if does a windowed sensor at 2K give 1866 pixels (1.866K) by these new techniques.

Also if using the current sensor what improvements are there likely to be using the Rocket card and new software ? We would like the new sensor but its not here just yet :-)
 
So, that's 2,5-2,7K of actual resolution from the 3K models. Nice! A bit more room for re-framing and stabilization.

I guess this mainly affects luma resolution and not chroma(color) resolution? Or not?
 
I'm not the only magician at RED, just one with a public face.

Graeme
 
WOW!!!

Graeme,

What i like above all is how smooth and natural the high res images look like from this camera.

Can't wait to have my M-X sensor.

Congrats to all the team!

Antoine
 
Resolution in 2k and 3k scales proportionately.

Graeme
 
This is an old thread and i read it a long time ago,but i am posting in it again because some of the more recent comments of jim said that red one mx 4k equals to 3.2k and 4.5k equals to 3.7k, i want to know which one is right,does the 4k in red mx still yields 3.5k and 4.1 at 4.5k,or the resolution specks were changed to the original before the release of the mysterium x sensor due to some reason. pls reply
 
Yes, did the new debayering magic (>80% resolvable) get included in any REDCINE-X releases?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top